1. The author of the
communication (dated 20 September 1990) is H. H., an Austrian citizen
residing in Vienna. He claims to be the victim of violations by Austria of
articles 7, 17, 23 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. The Optional Protocol entered into force for Austria on 10
March 1988.

FACTS AS SUBMITTED

2.1 The author is a
professor of biomechanics at the University of Vienna. Since 1986, he has
been endeavouring to build a house in the community of E. in the District of
Lower Austria (Niederösterreich); allegedly, the mayor of E. has used his
administrative powers to frustrate the author's efforts to obtain
construction authorizations.

2.2 Since 1986, the mayor
of E. has allegedly sent several summons, as notices and decisions to the
author, many of them based on the building regulations of Lower Austria
(Niederösterreichische Bauordnung), with the sole purpose of harassing him.
These summons and decisions were later found to be unlawful by the district
government of Lower Austria, as well as by the courts. The author submits
that he had to invest considerable time and money to obtain the necessary
legal advice for the proceedings destined to fend off the attacks of the
mayor.

2.3 In the chronology of
his case, the author singles out the following events. On 14 March 1988, the
mayor of E. issued a notice ordering the author to pay a substantial sum of
money (Aufschliessungsbeitrag) for the authorization of the joinder of two
building sites. Three legal advisors of the district government allegedly
explained to the mayor by letter that his notice was lacking a proper legal
basis. Ignoring their advice, the mayor initiated proceedings by which a
significant part of the author's salary was seized and transferred to a
community account.

2.4 On 6 July 1990, the
Supreme Administrative Tribunal of Austria (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) found in
the author's favour and confirmed that the actions of the mayor lacked a
legal basis. The money seized from the author had to be repaid.

2.5 The author states that
the "unbearable situation" caused by the mayor's actions against him means
that the normal pursuit of his professional duties and participation in
academic symposia and publication activities have been reduced alarmingly.
In this context, he explains that since 1986, he has spent over 600 hours on
drafting "countless appeals and letters" in defence of his rights; this has
amounted to financial losses of approximately $US 90,000, for which he
claims he deserves compensation.

2.6 The author further
states that he has requested the president of the provincial government of
Lower Austria as well as the Vice Chancellor of the Republic to investigate
the conduct of the mayor of E. However, they informed him that they had no
competence to carry out an investigation into the matter, on account of the
autonomy of municipalities (Gemeindeautonomie) in Austria. With these steps,
the author claims to have exhausted available domestic remedies.

COMPLAINT

3.1 According to the
author, the proceedings initiated by the mayor of E. have caused
"irreparable harm" to his reputation at the University of Vienna, as many
university departments, as well as the dean of his faculty, the rector of
the university and some colleagues, were involved in the "degrading
procedures" against him or became aware of them. In the author's opinion,
the "unlawful" attacks of the mayor constitute violations of article 17,
paragraph 1, of the Covenant.

3.2 The author further
submits that the "permanent harassment and psychological terror" exercised
by the mayor since 1986 have had a profoundly detrimental effect on his and
his family's health, security and well-being, a situation said to constitute
a violation of articles 7 and 23, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.

STATE PARTY'S OBSERVATIONS AND
THE AUTHOR'S COMMENTS THEREON

4. In its submission,
dated 24 September 1991, the State party argues that the communication is
inadmissible. According to the State party all unlawful actions by the mayor
have been remedied; the author has failed to substantiate his allegations
that he is still a victim of a violation of articles 7, 17, 23, and 26 of
the Covenant. The State party further contends that the author has failed to
exhaust criminal and constitutional remedies.

5.1 In his comments, the
author disputes the State party's contention that there are still criminal
and constitutional remedies available. He states that, on 29 August 1988 and
21 September 1990, he filed criminal charges against the mayor for misuse of
official powers; on both occasions the public prosecutor declined to
initiate criminal proceedings against the mayor. He forwards copies of the
notices of dismissal of his complaints. He further submits that he filed a
constitutional complaint with the Government of Lower Austria on 28 May
1990, alleging to be a victim of a violation of the principle of equality.
This complaint was dismissed on 22 March 1991.

5.2 The author argues that
he still suffers from the consequences of the unlawful acts intentionally
committed by the mayor, which, according to the author, amounted to inhuman
and degrading treatment. He further contends that the violations are not
sufficiently remedied by the quashing of the mayor's decisions, since he did
not receive any compensation for the harm done to his reputation and for the
time and money he spent on appealing the decisions.

ISSUES AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE
THE COMMITTEE

6.1 Before considering any
claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must,
pursuant to rule 87 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is
admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.

6.2 The Committee
considers that the author has not substantiated, for purposes of
admissibility, his claim that he is a victim of violations by the State
party of articles 7, 17, 23 and 26 of the Covenant. The Committee further
notes that the author's allegations concern decisions taken by the mayor of
E., which have subsequently been quashed by higher authorities or the
courts. The Committee, accordingly, concludes that the author has failed to
advance a claim under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

6.3 In so far as the
author may be understood as claiming compensation for the harm done to his
reputation and for the time and money he spent on appealing the mayor's
decisions, the Committee notes that the author has not initiated civil
proceedings against those persons or entities whom he claims were
responsible. The Committee therefore concludes that, in this respect, the
author has failed to exhaust domestic remedies.

7. The Human Rights
Committee therefore decides:

(a) That the
communication is inadmissible under articles 2 and 5, paragraph 2 (b), of
the Optional Protocol;

(b) That this decision
shall be transmitted to the State party and to the author of the
communication.